TAS 2020 A 7158 Real Madrid CF c. FIFA
CAS · Football (FIFA / CAS) · Switzerland · 1 Jun 2021
Why it matters
This award clarifies the standard for third-party influence under Article 18bis RSTP, confirming that influence must be real and effective, not merely indirect or potential. It reinforces the need for a restrictive interpretation of disciplinary provisions and upholds the principle of contractual freedom, limiting FIFA's ability to penalize standard commercial clauses. The decision provides guidance to clubs on permissible contractual terms and the importance of accurate TMS declarations.
Summary
Real Madrid CF appealed a FIFA decision finding it violated Article 18bis (third-party influence) and Annex 3 Article 4 (TMS obligations) of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP). The case arose from a transfer agreement with Manchester City FC for player Brahim Díaz, which included a sell-on clause (Clause 5.2) requiring Real Madrid to pay Manchester City 15% of any profit from a future transfer, but 40% if the player was transferred to a club in Greater Manchester (effectively Manchester United). FIFA's Disciplinary Committee imposed a CHF 20,000 fine, reduced to CHF 10,000 on appeal. Real Madrid argued the clause did not give Manchester City any ability to influence its decisions, as Real Madrid remained free to choose the buyer and terms. The CAS panel applied a restrictive interpretation of Article 18bis, consistent with prior CAS jurisprudence (CAS 2017/A/5463, CAS 2019/A/6301), holding that prohibited influence requires a 'real and effective' capacity to affect a club's independence in employment or transfer matters. The panel found that the differential sell-on percentage did not confer such influence; it was merely a commercial term reflecting the parties' bargain. However, Real Madrid had declared in the TMS system that the contract contained no third-party influence, which was incorrect because the clause did create a potential (though not prohibited) influence. Therefore, the panel upheld the violation of Annex 3 Article 4 for providing false information. The fine was reduced to CHF 10,000, considering the lack of actual influence and Real Madrid's clean record. The award emphasizes that not every contractual provision that might indirectly affect a club's decisions violates Article 18bis; only those that genuinely restrict independence do.
The detail
Parties: TAS 2020 A 7158 Real Madrid CF c. FIFA
Outcome: The CAS panel upheld the FIFA Appeal Committee's decision, finding Real Madrid violated Article 18bis and Annex 3 Article 4 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players, but reduced the fine from CHF 20,000 to CHF 10,000.
Quantum: CHF 10,000
Applicable law: FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (RSTP), specifically Article 18bis (third-party influence) and Annex 3 Article 4 (TMS obligations); Swiss law as the governing law of FIFA's statutes.
Issues in play: The case involved the interpretation of 'influence' under Article 18bis RSTP, balancing the prohibition of third-party influence against the principle of contractual freedom under Swiss law. The panel had to determine whether a sell-on clause with a higher percentage for transfers to a specific region constituted prohibited influence.
Read the full decision at Court of Arbitration for Sport (football, via FIFA) ↗
Locus Standi links to the source decision and publishes its own plain-language summary. It does not reproduce the text of the award.